LG

If they are cooperating they aren't enemies

How in the heck do you think that enemies declare truces, engage in treaties, and sometimes even move from being enemies to being allies?

If the screaming hoard comes over the hill armed to the teeth seeking to possess a water supply do You say "oh, they need water let them have it" or do you say "to arms, to arms the enemy is upon us"??

As Oakspear already pointed out, theists and non-theists act similarly in such situations. Both defend themselves with deadly force if they deem it necessary and both act in nonviolent manners, including offering concessions to those with competing interests, if they deem that to be appropriate.

"love thy enemies" "do good to them that persecute you" -which is where true morality starts, is not a concept that is entertained by societal groups with no concept of something beyond this earthly plane.

And you know this how? The answer is, you don't. Those concepts, with limitations that almost all theists acknowledge and practice, are pretty basic to interpersonal relations, getting along with other people. They're not dependent upon belief in a supernatural "plane," nor a belief in life after physical death.

And while Buddhism , and many Eastern religions do not have a supreme deity they do have lesser deities and ancestor worship. They recognize a force greater than the sum total of man.

Every sane person recognizes "a force greater than the sum total of man." That is not a theistic concept. Personifying such forces is.

Of what use is empathy for your enemy in a society which views only the here of value?

First, nobody said anything about empathy for a specific person or group but rather, epathy as a quality, being only one of many qualities that motivate cooperation among people, whether within local societies or across local societal boundaries. Those qualities lead both individuals and societies (from groups of two or a few through various local societies to the worldwide community) to adopt standards (moral codes, local customs and laws, international conventions, etc.).

Second, no normal person or society of which I am aware "views only the here of value." Even thinking from the most selfish, non-theistic basis I can imagine, normal people recognize, for example, that in their older years or in all sorts of possible future times of trouble, they will need the assistance of others, and will likely see the value in cultivating relationships that maximixe the liklihood that others will lend such assistance when it is needed. It doesn't take a theist to realize that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" promotes both short term cooperation and long term relationships that tend to maximize the possibility that others will offer assistance when needed in the future.

When You take God from the equation that is what you have --The here --There is no guarantee of tomorrow and there is no life after death--So what you do on this earth carries no consequences beyond what the societal group values.

Taking God from "the equation" doesn't necessarily negate the possibility of some sort of existence beyond physical death but if we accept that it does, that still doesn't limit consideration to the here or the now, nor does it limit societal concerns to one's own society. People live for decades, move about within societies and among societies, and even if they remain relatively stationary within a society, both affect and are affected by societies other than their own. Whether or not they recognize a deity, most people recognize that their actions as individuals and the actions of the groups to which they belong will affect their future wellbeing, so even the most selfish of normal people will tend to adopt and promote individual and group standards of behavior that they deem likely to positively affect future conditions.

Non-believers point to the fact they have empathy, love, concern etc for those not of their group. But that is only because society as a whole is theistic (of one kind or another) and the values of said society are based on a theistic foundation.

Have you ever observed animals? They seem not to be theistic but still demonstrate, to at least some degree, qualities you seem to think would be impossible for humans in a non-theistic society.

If, as the original question was posed, "Assume there is no God" I submit that these concepts in relationship to those outside the group never would have evolved because it would not be necessary for the societal group--in fact it would be antithecal to that group's survival.

Antithetical? Hardly. Cooperation among groups promotes the survival and wellbeing of all groups involved.

You miss a few motivators that need not be theistically based, templelady, including empathy.

I hope my lame attempt at humor wasn't offensive. If it was, I'm sorry.

God used a murderer, Saul of Tarsus, to represent him.

Oldies, the Bible never says anything about Saul of Tarsus being a murderer. Rather, it's pretty clear that he was not. What he was, was a devout (though misled, if the New Testament is to be believed) Jew, who zealously acted upon what he believed to be God's law (God's Word, if you prefer). There's plenty of justification in the Old Textament for his actions against Christians. There's no justification anywhere in the Bible for Wierwille's.

To call Saul of Tarsus a murderer indicates to me an almost complete lack of understanding of the message of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

teddy

Hmm. I didn't see any questions about favorite or sexiest outfits, so what was this in response to?

Hate to tell you this, Garth, but your arguments are even weaker than theistic arguments. You come across much like the theistic God-denier (disobeyer, if you prefer) Mo describes. Any argument based on human moral judgment of a supposed superior or supreme supernatureal entity to determiine the existence of such an entity is even more flawed than arguments that such an entiy must exist in order to validate moral standards. If such a being exists, He (it?) is far superior to us, is not subject to any morality we might thik to be proper, and has every right to annihilate anyone He (it?) may choose.

I don't believe the Biblical God exists, but if He does, about the most any of us are qualified to say is that we don't acknowlege His supremacy. That seems to be your position. If so, then Zixar's "I'm mad because I didn't get my pony, so I'm going to deny His existence and hold my breath until I turn blue" representation of such a position seems valid. Neither your arguments nor Zixar's characterization of non-theistic thinking accurately reflect my thinking.

BTW, it's "unmitgated gall," not "mitigated gaul."

(((((group)))))

(bunch of gosh-durn (probably to heck) a-holes) :)

If the God of the Bible is as represented in the Bible, then He had a perfect right to order the killing of the people in question and killing them was not murder. My only point in my earlier comments about those people was that the Biblical God's acceptance is not unconditional.

I've not taken anything you've written as an attack. You may have crossed some personal boundary, but you remained civil and didn't break any forum rules, so I see nothing for which you should apologize. I do appreciate your thoughtfulness and your heart, though.

I KNEW she was all that and bag of chips! :D

Chips or nuts?

What in the world does a man do with a naked woman and chicken wings AT THE SAME TIME?????

Maybe I don't want to know!!! eeeeeeekkkk!

Oh, but you do want to know!!! But I'm not telling. I wouldn't want to ruin whatever Ted has in store for you.

I've no interest in seeing the movie, or in watching two men do anything together of a sexual nature, but I'm not ignorant enough to think that there aren't male couples who love each other just as deeply as any male-female couples do. Is their love unnatural? Maybe so, maybe not. Doesn't matter. It's real to them, and that's all that really matters. I suspect that some of their stories are just as dramatic as those of heterosexual couples.

Regarding my lack of interest (revulsion, actually) in watching two men engaging in sexual activity, the main reason, I think, is that I can't identify with either partner. I'm not attracted to men and find the notion of sexual activity with a man personally repulsive, so my main response to seeing two men relating in a sexual manner is revulsion. I don't have that response to seeing heterosexual or lesbian activity, because I can identify with at least one partner. I'd guess that it is probably easier for most women than for most men to view male homosexual activity with some degree of accepance, and easier for most men than for most women to view female homosexual activity, although that is probably mitigated quite a bit by our society's acceptance and encouragement of females showing physical intimacy (kissing, hugging, etc.) for one another.

Also, men tend to be more visually oriented than women, and women tend to be more inclined to appreciate emotional components of a relationship, so whether a relationship is hetero- or homosexual, I'd guess that women would be more likely than men to focus on the emotional aspects portrayed than on the physical, which in the case of a male homosexual relationship, would be quite a turnoff for many (probably most) heterosexual men. If the guys were good looking, though, heterosexual women might also appreciate some of the physical aspects being portrayed.

I get it I really do

No, you don't get it. The issue never was what the Biblical God (if He exists) has a right to do. It was your claim (not God's, nor the Bible's) that love means unconditional acceptance and the Biblical God unconditionally accepts all people. The Bible says otherwise, and so do you. You say that repentance is a condition of God's acceptance but still argue that God's acceptance is unconditional. So you not only contradict the Bible, but also yourself.

If you were to say that the Biblical God's love is unconditional, I'd not argue with you. But to say that His acceptance is unconditional is flat anti-Biblical. Again, none of this would be an issue, if not for your statement equating love with unconditional acceptance.

People who claim to believe the Bible and also claim that love means unconditional acceptance or that the God of the Bible (New or Old Testament) unconditionally accepts people should look at the Biblical uses of "accept," "acceptible," etc.

Forget Old Testament examples, in which killing was involved. The New Testament makes it clear that acceptance is conditional. That's not criticism of the God of the Bible. Unconditional acceptance would be foolish, for man, beast, or deity.

Nevermind, templelady. You don't see the contradiction in what you're saying and I don't care to pursue it any further.

You keep jumping back and forth between "love" and "acceptance." Earlier, you said that God unconditionally accepts everyone, then immediately stated a condition--repentance. I pointed that out, and you replied by discussing withdrawal of love.

Let's stick with acceptance for now. How does, for example, God ordering Israel to slaughter entire nations, including women and children, exemplify His unconditional acceptance of the people of those nations?

But God does unconditionally accept everyone--All can repent... and once they have repented...

Is that not a condition?

Templelady, you're the one who defined love as unconditional acceptance. Lindy gave some examples of conditional acceptance. It seems to me that if the biblical God loves everyone but doesn't unconditionally accept everyone, then your definition is not accurate.

Sudo and Lindy, I appreciate your kind words but I really don't see my mother's condition as anything to be sorry about. She is well into her eighties, has lived longer than any other of my ancestors or close relatives, and is not suffering from any horribly painful diseases or mental debilitation such as comes from Alzheimer's, although she does suffer from some chronic pain that is alleviated by medication and her mental faculties are somewhat impaired. She is simply old and her body and its systems are giving out on her. As far as I can tell, she will die in peace, whenever that might happen.

Lindy, I don't sound disingenuous because I've never spoken out against the religious beliefs of any person I've known. Most people I know assume that I am a Christian. Even those who know that I am not religious and not affiliated with any church usually assume that I am a Christian, but one for whom faith is a private matter. I see no reason to get "in their faces" and challenge their assumptions, or usually even to mention my disbelief in notions they accept by faith. Also, when I "speak their language," I throw in qualifiers that allow me to remain honest but still be supportive of their faith. For example, with a fundamentalist Bible believer, I might quote and reason from the Bible, but preface whatever I say with, "The Bible says..." That way, I can speak "their language," without making my belief or disbelief in what the Bible says an issue. I'm being honest, because the Bible really does say whatever it is that I'm telling them. Whether or not I believe the Bible to be true is irrelevant. They do, and that is all that matters.

CM, I'm aware that not everyone views Christianity as I do. You are obviously offended by my view that it is based on fables. I don't mean to offend. I'm simply expressing my thoughts, in as non-offensive way as I can. I'll grant the possibility that your "real experience" are genuine. Assuming that they are, and that your beliefs are true, for some reason, thirty-odd years of trying to know God yielded no similar experiences for me. Perhaps I missed some clues, but it certainly wasn't because I didn't "want to look." I looked hard. I prayed fervently. I professed belief even when I doubted. I tried “fake it till you make it.”My faking it was so good that it fooled everyone but me, in every denomination with which I was involved, from Catholic, through TWI, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist (both Southern and independent) and a couple of "non-denominational" churches.. All thought I “had it together,” was “tapped in,” had a wonderful relationship with “the Lord.,” etc. Only I knew that it was all an act. I didn’t want it to be an act. I wanted it to be real. I spent many sleepless nights in prayer (and sometimes in tears) trying to commune with God. So disagree with me all you want, but don’t make the mistake of presuming that I came to my current conclusions because I “don’t want to look.”

I looked, I studied, I prayed, I begged, I cried, long and hard. I did everything I could think of, for many years, to seek and to know God, by whom I mean the God of the Bible. If he exists, he did not deem it appropriate to make himself known to me through all those years. I've knocked, but the door wasn't opened to me. If there is a God, at this point, he'll have to break open the door on his own, because I'm through trying to open it from my side.

LG,

"Based on different premises." Is that right? If it is, you could possibly:

1. Demonstrate obligation in a non-theistic worldview (i.e. on non-theistic grounds);

or,

2. Describe how a moral structure that is neutral with respect to obligation can be supported.

That's pretty easy, Cynic. I oblige those with whom I deal to deal honestly. If they don't, I respond as I deem appropriate, with measures ranging from simply not dealing with them any more to deadly force. Other people impose similar obligations on those with whom they deal. A stable population can't have people going around harming or killing one another, so society agrees on certain standards and enforces them.

Moral structures do not necessarily depend upon obligation. I don't refrain from murdering my neighbors because of either legal or spiritual obligation. I would consider anyone who doesn't murder because it's against the law or is a sin to be morally deficient.

I wonder - is it God you dont' believe in or the organizations that have been representing Him lately?

I don't believe in any sort of deity. That doesn't reflect on my opinion of some religious organizations. I think highly of many of them. Many do a lot of good, both for individuals and for the greater community. I think that some of their basic premises are not well founded and that their notion of God is little more than wishful thinking, but many of the moral structures they have built upon those premises are sound, and could be just as well be based on different premises.

I'm not a theist but I'm far from being anti-theist or anti-Christiian. I like much about Christianity. I simply see it as being based on fables. But that's not a bad thing, in my estimation. Fables and other fiction can convey great ideas. I don't have to think that the fables are true in order to appreciate the great ideas they convey.

I know enough about varoius religious beliefs that I can convincingly espouse them. I have on many occasions prayed with people, reminded them of various scriptures they hold dear, and reasoned with them from those scriptures in order to try to build their faith and comfort them in times of trouble, even though I don't personally share their faith. I could and would minister last rites to a dying Catholic, if a priest were not available. I could and would assume the role of a Protestant fundamentalist, in order to comfort a person of that persuasion. I could and would assume the role of a more liberal Prostestant, in order to comfort a person of that persuasion. I have done so with both troubled people and dying people of the latter two persuasions and am currently adopting the manner and words of a devout Catholic in order to comfort my mother, who is likely not long for this world. To me, it matters not at all that I don't believe what I say. What matters is that someone who does believe is comforted and helped.

I'm not as famliar with non-Christian beliefs, but I think I know enough about Judaism and Islam to be able to offer some comfort to Jews or Muslims in times of trouble, should the need arise. I would certainly give it my best effort, as I would also with people of other religious persuasions.

For myself, about all the comfort I would wish would be the knowledge that those I care about would carry fond memories of me and hopefully benefit in the future from whatever good I have been able to instill in their lives. Knowing that I have positively influenced my daughter's life, and thereby the lives of others she will impact in the future, gives all the value to my life that I need. As long as I have my affairs in order, so that I don't leave her a burden, I can die a happy man, whether it be tonight or fifty years from now.

I didn't suggest that Christians are irrational, templelady.

"Unring that bell" is a line used in courts by lawyers. Once a jury heas something it is said that even of instructed to disregard it the cannot really forget ever hearing it.

And your daughter may not believe in God or gods - but she has heard of them. (Just an aside not an argumentative point.)

I accept it in that spirit but I'll point out that probably every human being who has ever existed has heard of or contemplated the possibility of gods or other supernatural beings (fairies, spirits of ancestors, etc.).

How does one unring the bell of the god or gods of volcanos, the sea, rivers, the seasons, the sun, moon, and stars, and so on? How does one unring fairy, leprechaun, or forest nymph bells?

There's no question that my morals and worldview (and by extension, my daughter's) have been influenced by Christianity, but they have also been influenced by many other things, including cold, rational thought.

Having believed in God - How do you "unring that bell?"

Sure there are all sorts of things that don't loose their meaning "if there is no God," but somewhere in the back of your life there was a belief in God. I'm not so sure that the same would be true had you never known or been exposed to Him.

My daughter was not raised to believe in God or gods. (I was still trying to sort out what I thought about that during her early years, but I was quite open about my doubts, and became secure in my conclusion that there is no God by the time she was six or seven.) She is now 22 years old and is a better, more loving, more stable person than I was at her age. I actually find myself envying her for that at times.